4.6 Article

Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: An updated meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 796-801

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06530.x

关键词

capsule endoscopy; double balloon endoscopy; gastrointestinal endoscopy; gastrointestinal hemorrhage; meta-analysis; small intestine

资金

  1. Nycomed Canada Inc
  2. Altana Pharma Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Uncertainty remains about the best test to evaluate patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Previous meta-analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic yields with capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) but relied primarily on data from abstracts and were not limited to bleeding patients. Many studies have since been published. Therefore, we performed a new meta-analysis comparing CE and DBE focused specifically on OGIB. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed of comparative studies using both CE and DBE in patients with OGIB. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine the weighted pooled diagnostic yields of each method and the odds ratio for the successful localization of a bleeding source. Results: Ten eligible studies were identified. The pooled diagnostic yield for CE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.3-76.1) and for DBE was 56% (95% CI 48.9-62.1), with an odds ratio for CE compared with DBE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.88-2.20; P = 0.16). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the yield for DBE performed after a previously positive CE was 75.0% (95% CI 60.1-90.0), with the odds ratio for successful diagnosis with DBE after a positive CE compared with DBE in all patients of 1.79 (95% CI 1.09-2.96; P = 0.02). In contrast, the yield for DBE after a previously negative CE was only 27.5% (95% CI 16.7-37.8). Conclusions: Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy provide similar diagnostic yields in patients with OGIB. However, the diagnostic yield of DBE is significantly higher when performed in patients with a positive CE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据